Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens ...

[Pages:18]T E ST IM ONY

R

Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens, Businesses, and Non-Governmental Organizations

Bruce Hoffman

CT-176 April 2001 Presented to the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, House Committee on Government Reform, April 3, 2001

The RAND testimony series contains the statements of RAND staff members as prepared for delivery.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors.

PROTECTING AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD: U.S. CITIZENS, BUSINESSES, AND

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Testimony of Dr. Bruce Hoffman Vice President, External Affairs and Director, RAND Washington Office

Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, House Committee on

Government Reform

April 3, 2001

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this written testimony are the author's alone and should not be interpreted as representing those of RAND or any of the sponsors of its research.

PROTECTING AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD: U.S. CITIZENS, BUSINESSES, AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Statement of Bruce Hoffman, Vice President, External Affairs and Director, RAND Washington Office

Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this important matter.

Nearly half a century ago the renowned British novelist and international traveler, Evelyn Waugh, presciently observed that, "In a few years' time the world will be divided into zones of insecurity which one can penetrate only at the risk of murder and tourist routes along which one will fly to chain hotels, hygienic, costly and second-rate."1 Today, many Americans would likely agree with that assessment: simultaneously comforted by the monochromatic familiarity of restaurants and hotels that have become indistinguishable from one another whether located here or abroad; while increasingly leery of a world beyond our borders seen as populated by terrorists, kidnappers, brigands and bandits.

It is perhaps not surprising that such a world view of palpable threat and acute risk should exist given the seeming unrelenting litany of terrorist attacks, high-profile kidnappings, aircraft hijackings, extortions and robberies that have deliberately targeted or randomly entangled Americans either travelling or working abroad. To a large extent, this perception is grounded in an undeniable reality: for over three decades, terrorists have targeted the United

____________ This testimony is based on the author's cumulative knowledge derived from 25 years of

studying terrorists and terrorism. No Federal government grants or monies funded any of the work presented in this written testimony. The opinions and conclusions expressed both in this testimony and the published work from which it is derived are entirely the author's own and should not be interpreted as representing those of RAND or any of the sponsors of its research. 1 Evelyn Waugh, "I See Nothing But Boredom . . . Everywhere (London, Daily Mail, 28 December 1959)," in Donat Gallagher (ed.), Evelyn Waugh: A Little Order----A Selection From His Journalism (London: Eyre Methuen, 1977), pp. 47-48.

- 2 -

States--and in turn its citizens--more often than any other country.2 The report of the National Commission on Terrorism last year drew attention to precisely this lamentable situation: "Terrorists attack American targets more often than those of any other country."3 Recent testimony before a Senate Committee respectively by the Director, Central Intelligence, George Tenet and a senior State Department official further attested to this fact: with both men agreeing that "The United States remains a number one target of international terrorism. As in previous years, close to one-third of all incidents worldwide in 2000 were directed against Americans."4

That the world is perhaps a more dangerous place today for Americans than ever before is further evidenced by the U.S. State Department's list of "Current Travel Warnings and Public Announcements." As of this past Sunday (1 April 2001), for instance, more than a quarter of the world's countries were --for one reason or another--deemed unsafe for Americans to visit.5 While one would doubtless expect to find Indonesia, Burundi, Israel (and the West Bank and Gaza), Colombia, etc. on the list of countries that Americans are recommended to avoid; the presence of the United Kingdom, for example, on an ancillary list of somewhat less dangerous places--but ones nonetheless with "terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions that pose significant risks or disruptions to Americans"--was slightly more bewildering. Admittedly, the 15 March 2001 advisory pertaining to the outbreak of foot-andmouth disease in that country partially explains the UK's inclusion. But when one also consults the "public announcement" posted on 4 December 2000,

____________ 2 Followed by Israel, France, Great Britain, Germany, the former Soviet Union and Russia,

Turkey, Cuba, Spain, and Iran. The RAND Chronology of International Terrorism cited in Bruce Hoffman, "Terrorism Trends and Prospects," in Ian Lesser, et al., Countering the New Terrorism (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, MR-989-1999), p. 35. 3 Report from the National Commission on Terrorism, Countering The Changing Treat Of International Terrorism (Washington, DC, June 2000), p. iii. 4 See Testimony of Thomas Fingar, Acting Assistant Secretary, Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State, Statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on "Worldwide Threat 2001: National Security in a Changing World," Congressional Quarterly Abstract (electronic version), 7 February 2001; and, Statement by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "Worldwide Threat 2001: National Security in a Changing World," 7 February 2001 at: . 5 See accessed 1 April 2001.

- 3 -

which is still in force, a different picture presents itself of "numerous incidents of terrorism [in which] . . . some [Americans] have been injured when caught up in disturbances."6 Those planning a holiday or embarking on a business trip might be forgiven for not knowing what to conclude from such messages: is it or is it not safe to travel to the United Kingdom? Am I at greater risk from terrorism by riding the London tube or from muggers while on the New York City subway? Is it more dangerous to visit the UK or to drive along one of American's highways to the nearest airport? The "Current Travel Warnings and Public Announcements" list of course makes no pretension whatsoever of being able to answer such questions, but at the same time it is difficult to disagree with the observation of these lists that was in Sunday's Washington Post travel section:

The warnings can be useful, but many travelers and travel professionals think the department often overreacts. Its current warning on Lebanon underlines the dangers of potential violence, but no travelers have reported problems there in years. During a two-week trip last summer, this reporter wandered the streets of Beirut without mishap. Even the southern parts of the country, which the [State] department described as particularly risky, seemed safe enough.7

At the same time, moreover, in a country like the United States where student-perpetrated homicides in our schools have become tragically common, where national murder rates hover at around 16,000 deaths per year, and national violent crime figures annually exceed one million incidents, 8 the risks to United States citizens traveling and working abroad need to be put in an admittedly discomforting perspective of just how safe we are in fact living and working and going to school within our own borders. Another Washington Post article this past weekend (on Saturday's front-page), for example, called

____________ 6 See and

, both accessed 1 April 2001. 7 Gary Lee, "Deciphering State Department Warnings," Washington Post, 1 April 2001, p. E7. 8 In 1999, a total of 15,533 persons were murdered in the U.S. (the 1998 figure was 16,973)

among the 1,430,693 violent crimes that were recorded that year (1,533,887 in 1998). Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation National Press Office, Washington, D.C., 18 December 2000.

- 4 -

attention to what is now sadly standard operating procedure in the metropolitan area's high schools: school safety drills "in which classrooms become protective bunkers . . . designed to show students, teachers and administrators how to survive should an intruder, or insider, suddenly appear with a weapon."9 To put these two very different, equally tragic and heartwrenching threats, in perspective: the 1999 Columbine, Colorado school shooting by two students killed 15 persons and wounded 23; that same year example (the most recent year for which published State Department statistics are available), according to the U.S. State Department's authoritative Global Patterns of Terrorism, a total of five Americans perished at the hands of terrorists and another 179 were injured as a result of some 169 terrorist attacks (a 52% increase from the previous year) directed against U.S. targets overseas. 10 It is perhaps worth noting that on average, 26 Americans have been killed per year by terrorists since 1968:11 in 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre, this figure was just two persons fewer than the 28 students killed nationwide in America's schools.12

In drawing this distinction, I should emphasize that I am by no means suggesting that terrorism does not pose a genuine and dangerous threat to Americans traveling or working abroad and indeed that whatever the number of persons killed and injured overseas it is incontestably tragic that any American should lose his or her life to violence or be wantonly harmed and injured simply because of the nationality of the passport they carry, the uniform they wear, or the job they perform. Rather, it is simply meant to point out that in assessing the terrorist threat posed to American interests and citizens abroad--as in the assessment of all types of terrorist threats--one needs to do so soberly and analytically lest we overreact, fail to place terrorism in the context of the many other risks and threats that exist and thereby inadvertently succumb to the fear and intimidation that is precisely the

____________ 9 Michael E. Ruane, "School Safety Drills' New Mantra: Duck and Cover," Washington Post,

31 March 2001, pp. A1 & A13. 10 Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999

(Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of State Publication 10687, April 2000), p. 1. 11 Total deduced from published U.S. Department of State. 12 Gregg Easterbrook, "Washington Diarist: Street Sign, The New Republic, 26 March 2001, p.

42.

- 5 -

terrorists' timeless stock and trade.13 As noted last week in my testimony before this same Subcommittee, we then risk making hard policy and security choices and attendant budgetary allocations based possibly on misperception and misunderstanding rather than on hard analysis built on empirical evidence.

With that caveat in mind, let me now turn to the first of the three subjects that I have been requested to address: that of, the general security environment for non-official Americans overseas. I will then turn to examining briefly the types of threats against non-governmental organizations abroad; and, finally will offer some general recommendations for protecting non-official American interests abroad.

THE GENERAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENT FOR NON-OFFICIAL AMERICANS OVERSEAS

Let me first point out that the above discussion of comparative threat assessment and relative risk analysis, drawing on cold statistics should not detract from the fact that the threat to Americans--including those travelling or living overseas in non-official capacities--is real, dangerous, and, I must note, arguably changing and growing in undesirable directions that could still more adversely affect U.S. citizens in the future. Whatever the figure, one point is incontrovertible: while the volume of worldwide terrorism fluctuates from year to year, and the number of U.S. citizens killed or wounded rises and declines depending on the overall level of worldwide activity and the violent dimensions of each particular terrorist incident that affects Americans, one enduring feature is that the United States remains the favored target of terrorists abroad. As previously noted, since 1968, the United States has annually headed the list of countries whose nationals and property are most frequently attacked by terrorists. This phenomenon is attributable as much to the geographical scope and diversity of America's overseas commercial interests and the number of our military bases on foreign soil as to the United States' stature as the lone remaining superpower. Terrorists are attracted to American interests and

____________ 13 See "Combating Terrorism: In Search of A National Strategy," Testimony of Dr. Bruce

Hoffman before Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 27 March 2001.

- 6 -

citizens abroad precisely because of the plethora of readily available targets; the symbolic value inherent in any blow struck against perceived American "imperialism," "expansionism," or "economic exploitation"; and, not least, because of the unparalleled opportunities for exposure and publicity from the world's most extensive news media that any attack on an American target assures.

The reasons why the United States is so appealing a target to terrorists suggests no immediate reversal of this attraction. To a certain extent, as the French scholar, Gerard Chaliand has argued, it is a price that the West--and in particular the United States as leader of the free world--pays for its hegemony.14 This has caused some analysts to argue that a less engaged U.S. foreign policy, exercising military restraint overseas and thereby eschewing the gamut of difficult and sometimes controversial missions involving peacekeeping and peace enforcement activities that in the past have invited attack, would have a salutary impact in reducing the incidence of terrorism directed against the U.S.15 Whatever the logic of such proposals, however, even if such a policy of disengagement were desirable, much less, possible, it is by no means clear that the U.S. would be spared the opprobrium and violence that proponents of this option seek to nullify. Regardless of what the U.S. actually does, we are perhaps irrevocably perceived as a status quo power; a reactionary force upholding the prevailing order and thereby preserving our hegemonic dominance by tacitly inhibiting, if not actively suppressing, change.

Even those mostly parochial, local conflicts in places where the U.S. has traditionally had little if any active involvement generate a somewhat surprisingly vehement degree of fear and loathing. In Sri Lanka, for example, the leadership of the LTTE (the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), a militant and violent Tamil separatist movement,16 reportedly decries the U.S. as an irredeemably "imperialist" power, arguing "wherever there is a revolution,

____________ 14 Gerard Chaliand, "Preface' to Bruce Hoffman, Le Mecanique terroriste (Paris: Calmann-

Levy, 1999), p. 9. 15 See, for example, Ivan Eland, "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The

Historical Record," Foreign Policy Briefing, No. 50, The CATO Institute (Washington, D.C.), 17 December 1998. 16 That has been included on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list since its inception in 1997 and is thereby proscribed from engaging in fundraising or any other political activities in the United States.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download